Crone, J.
Case Summary
J.R.O. was the subject of a child in need of services (“CHINS”) proceeding and a guardianship proceeding. His maternal great-aunt, A.T., and her wife, M.H. (collectively “Appellees”), petitioned to adopt him. J.R.O.’s father, J.O. (“Father”), was incarcerated and unrepresented by counsel in the adoption proceeding when the trial court held a hearing on the adoption petition. During that hearing, the court consolidated the CHINS, guardianship, and adoption proceedings. An attorney who represented Father in the CHINS proceeding and represented Father’s mother and stepfather in the guardianship proceeding – and later represented Father in the adoption proceeding – orally objected to the filing of the adoption petition because adoption would terminate Father’s parental rights. The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) later petitioned for the involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights. Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-18, the trial court ultimately determined that Father’s consent to the adoption was irrevocably implied because he did not file a written motion to contest the adoption. Consequently, the court granted Appellees’ petition to adopt J.R.O.
Father now appeals, asserting that Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-18 does not require the filing of a written motion to contest an adoption and that counsel’s oral objection was sufficient. We agree and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
…..
We first observe that a motion may be either written or oral and that oral motions may be filed…The legislature chose not to require the filing of a written motion to contest an adoption in Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-18, and we “will not read into a statute that which is not the expressed intent of the legislature.” Allen v. Allen, 54 N.E.3d 344, 347 (Ind. 2016).
Moreover, we have often held that where the purpose of a rule is satisfied, this Court will not elevate form over substance…To hold that Warrum’s oral objection did not preserve Father’s right to contest the adoption of his son, which would result in the termination of his parental rights, would elevate form over substance to an untenable degree. [Footnote omitted.]
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court erred in concluding that Father’s consent to the adoption was irrevocably implied because he did not file a written motion to contest the adoption…
Reversed and remanded.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.